���˿���

PE2115, lodged by Paul Aaron, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that white composite fillings are available as a treatment option for registered national health service dental patients, specifically when treating molar teeth.

The SPICe briefing notes that, although many people choose or prefer composite fillings because they can be coloured to match the existing teeth, amalgam is longer lasting and enables restorations to be carried out more quickly. However, amalgam fillings should not normally be provided for patients under 15 years of age, patients who are pregnant or breastfeeding, or patients where there is a letter from secondary care recommending that amalgam should not be used due to specific medical concerns.

Members may also have noted that, as part of wider efforts to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury, the European Union has agreed regulations that will ban the use of dental amalgams and prohibit the manufacturing, import and export of other mercury-added products from 1 January 2025.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government has stated that dental amalgam has been used successfully for more than 150 years and has been proven to provide lasting, reliable restorations. The response goes on to highlight the reforms to the NHS dental sector that were introduced in 2023, with the aim of allowing dentists to offer far more effective preventative care and to reduce the requirement for all restorations, regardless of material used. It is the Scottish Government’s view that

“to include white fillings in all cases for aesthetic reasons in the absence of an oral health rationale would not be supported within NHS general dental services.”

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

That is a proposal from Mr Torrance, in the light of the responses that we have received. It is not clear how we might otherwise take matters forward. There is obviously the issue of the EU ban. Are members content to proceed with Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2006, lodged by Ewan Miller, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 to cover dismissal of property factors or to lay regulations that would achieve the same aim. That could include giving the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors.

Our colleague, Sarah Boyack, joins us once again in our consideration of the petition. Good morning, Sarah.

We last considered the petition on 7 February, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to seek an update on work to finalise and publish the voluntary code of practice for land-owning maintenance companies. The response from the minister highlights the mechanisms that are available to home owners to remove property factors, which have led her to the view that legislative change at this time is neither necessary nor proportionate. The minister’s response also notes that work has not progressed on the voluntary code of practice as anticipated, and adds that

“this code would apply only where homeowners pay a land-owning land maintenance company for management of the open spaces that are owned by the land maintenance company.”

Sarah Boyack, do you have anything to say to the committee in light of what has progressed—or not progressed, as it turns out—since we last considered the petition?

Good morning, and welcome to the 17th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We have received apologies from Fergus Ewing, but I am delighted to welcome Marie McNair, who joins us live in the committee room, rather than online, for the first time.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Are members content to take in private items 4 and 5, which relate to the evidence that we are about to hear and to the committee’s work programme?

Members indicated agreement.

What about the places bit of your title?

That brings us to petition PE1941, lodged by Councillor Andrew Stuart Wood, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to monitor and regulate actions taken by local authorities when undertaking their statutory duty of ensuring health and safety within our cemeteries.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 24 January 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. Colleagues who were on the committee at the time might remember that we had a pretty extensive portfolio of illustrative examples of the destruction of headstones, including headstones that had just been buried—ostensibly to make them more secure—in a way that left half of the headstone missing, so that people could not see whose burial the stone marked.

The Scottish Government is taking forward the development of the draft burial regulations and, as part of that work, it consulted on the management of burial grounds, application for burial, exhumation, private burial and restoration of lairs. The analysis of this consultation has now been published, and the key findings include: support for the introduction of a burial management plan; agreement with the proposed powers to enable burial authorities to manage and maintain burial grounds to a safe standard; and support for the proposal to require burial authorities to contact lair holders prior to taking corrective action in relation to a lair, headstone or other memorial.

In view of the fact that that work has been agreed and is to progress, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

A little earlier, I heard you say—as others, possibly Nick Kempe, have said—that there are alternative or complementary mechanisms to the designation of a national park that might achieve a similar outcome. Can you give examples of alternative or complementary ways forward that might deliver those results?

The first new petition is PE2113, lodged by Wilson and Hannah Chowdhry, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide support to communities that are affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete.

The petition calls for a national fund to be set up to assist struggling homeowners and tenants who are affected by RAAC; and for the initiation of a public inquiry to investigate the practices of councils and housing associations on the issue, including investigation of how business related to RAAC was conducted, the handling of safety reports and property sales, the disclosure of RAAC, and responses to homeowners’ concerns. It also calls for legislation that is similar to the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 to be introduced or updated to ensure that developers, councils and housing associations are held accountable for using substandard property materials. Such legislation should mandate risk disclosure and make surveyors and solicitors liable for untraced defects, and it should include provision for a comprehensive register of high-risk buildings in Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing notes that, although the Scottish Government is not currently providing financial support to homeowners or local authorities for RAAC remediation work, it previously operated a scheme to support those who had a bought a home designated as having inherent structural defects.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government set out that

“the presence of RAAC in a building does not necessarily mean that the building is unsafe”,

and recommends that homeowners follow the risk-based approach of the Institution of Structural Engineers, as there may be no issues to address at some properties. The response goes on to state that Scottish Government is committed to working with the UK Government on the issue, and also references the requirement for local authorities to have in place a scheme of assistance strategy, which should set out the support available to private homeowners to make repairs to their home.

The response also mentions plans to review the Scottish home report, which is expected to consider how to ensure buyers can make an informed decision in relation to undertaking more detailed surveys, including structural reports establishing how the property is built, what materials are used and how these will perform in the future.

The petitioners have also provided two written submissions, the first of which comments on the Scottish Government’s response and raises concerns about the action, or lack thereof, that has been taken by local authorities to address this issue. In particular, the petitioners highlight that, although Scottish councils offer advice and guidance through the scheme of assistance strategy, none of them offers financial support to homeowners aiming to retain and remediate their properties.

The petitioners’ second submission follows the recent UK budget and the announcement of an additional £3.4 billion for Scotland, and calls for a portion of that funding to be allocated to support the needs of homeowners who are affected by RAAC. We have also received submissions from our MSP colleagues Edward Mountain and Murdo Fraser in support of the petition’s aims.

We have received comprehensive information in advance of our consideration of the petition. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed with what is an important petition? Many of us will have seen documentary coverage of the issues arising from buildings that are affected by RAAC.

Will you get an academic, arm’s-length organisation to take a look and analyse that?